similar to: Upgrading LLVM's minimum required CMake version

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:48 PM Nikita Popov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 9:07 PM Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> We had this discussion a few months ago and it petered out, and it’s recently been revived in the context of upgrading the CMake version specifically for libc++ (at which

Assuming this is a one-time version bump, this seems reasonable to me. Perhaps this goes without saying, but the warning for point 1 should only happen if you don’t have CMake >= 3.13.4 installed. It sounded to me from your original message that you have an urgent need to upgrade to 3.8. Were you planning on going ahead with that right away? From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at

I’m in favor of all this. Thanks for volunteering! I’m happy to help out in whatever way. Some things it might be worth figuring out for future upgrades: * If we want to limit ourselves to CMake versions supported by LTS releases of distros, which distros should we consider, and how far back should we go (i.e. is it just the latest LTS or the last two LTS versions)? * For platforms like Ubuntu

Every additional dependency that we force the user to manually install (either by building from source, or adding some new PPA to their ubuntu system), raises the barrier to entry that much higher. Just because we may require the user to manually install some newer compiler on their system doesn’t mean that we should also require them to install some newer CMake than what’s on their system.

Ubuntu 20.04 LTS will be released soon, and I believe it’ll have CMake 3.16.3, so that increases the LTS lower bound significantly. I strongly disagree with the sentiment that the build system already works so there’s no urgent need to improve it. I believe we should treat the build system like code, and the same ideas around refactoring apply. Our build system is a huge thorny mess; there’s tons

'Supported' means that it comes from the packages available from the distribution that can be seen via this page. https://packages.ubuntu.com/ These packages have been processed by the Ubuntu community to obtain a reliability expectation that would not apply, for example, to a PPA. The difference between installing or building Clang and LLVM from original sources as against

> On Apr 2, 2020, at 10:19, Louis Dionne via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Okay, so we've had some discussion on this thread, and although some people (including me) would like a more aggressive policy, I believe the following will not get any objection (based on the thread). On April 23rd 2020, Ubuntu 20.04 LTS will ship with CMake 3.16.x. This will make the

I think it does make a difference how many things we ask new developers to do to get up and running - because we've asked them to do one thing doesn't mean it's low-cost to ask them to do another thing. On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:20 AM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 9:16 AM Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at

> You're saying "doesn’t mean that we should" while I've been saying in this situation that "we can", there is quite a difference here I believe. Technically “we can” do anything we want. We can always require that the project be built with the current release candidate of CMake. That doesn’t mean that we should. From: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>

> On Apr 7, 2020, at 22:16, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:27 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote: > I think it does make a difference how many things we ask new developers to do to get up and running - because we've asked them to do one thing

Hi Dean, For me the build is still broken: -- Builtin supported architectures: i386;x86_64;x86_64h CMake Error at projects/compiler-rt/lib/xray/tests/CMakeLists.txt:21 (add_library): add_library cannot create target "RTXRay.test.osx" because another target with the same name already exists. The existing target is a static library created in source directory

Hi Dean, I have fixed the build failure in r329832. In general, do you think it would be possible to perform the task using higher-level functions available from AddCompilerRT.cmake? They were written exactly to avoid such errors. Regards, George > On Apr 11, 2018, at 10:50 AM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com> wrote: > > Hi Dean, > > For me the build is still

Hi, I've been working on a set of patches to statically link polly in the LLVM tools. There remains an error I can't seem to solve when linking llvm-lto (all other tools luckily get linked correctly): it insists adding libLLVMipo.a after libLLVMPolly.a on the link command, resulting in an error of the form: PassManagerBuilder.cpp:(.text+0x499): undefined reference to

I discovered that I can hack around my particular problem by placing set_property(TARGET clang PROPERTY INTERFACE_LINK_LIBRARIES) at the end of tools/driver/CMakeLists.txt. I'd prefer to fix this properly though, of course. On 12/1/17, 4:18 PM, "llvm-dev on behalf of Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org on behalf of llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

Hi all. I want to use llvm in my project and I want to make llvm a git submodule in my project. http://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html#embedding-llvm-in-your-project At this in the documentation it claims to describe how to embed llvm into a project. I tried it that way but it doesn't work, because there isn't any findLLVM.cmake in the llvm/cmake/modules directory anymore (i don't

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > Chris Bieneman is probably your best bet, and maybe also Dan Liew. > Hans, My current, and hopefully final, revision of the proposed patch is simplified and reworked to solve the problem entirely from cmake without touching the the llvm-build python scripts. Basically, the new fix for avoiding the

Hans, I have posted a complete patch for solving the linkage issues with LLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB on Phabricator at http://reviews.llvm.org/D16945. The bulk of the fix the simple changes of... Index: cmake/modules/AddLLVM.cmake =================================================================== --- cmake/modules/AddLLVM.cmake (revision 259743) +++ cmake/modules/AddLLVM.cmake (working copy) @@

I was a bit confused with what the difference was between the old target_link_libraries(foo bar) and the new target_link_libraries(foo INTERFACE|PRIVATE|PUBLIC bar) To try to find out, I decided to look at the generated build.ninja. The difference that shows up is far fewer order only dependencies. For example build lib/TableGen/CMakeFiles/LLVMTableGen.dir/Error.cpp.o: CXX_COMPILER

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Sebastian Pop <spop at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Is there a reason to not use the cmake add_dependencies to establish the link > order of the LLVM libs instead of using the LLVMBuild.txt info? Have you tried `target_link_libraries`? The new CMake book has an example showing one static lib depending on another (page 25): `target_link_libraries(foo

Hi Timo: You need to find LLVMConfig.cmake in the binary or install directory tree, not the source tree. Although I don't embed clang/llvm, my config might help you figure it -- clang/llvm installed under (could have used build directory) ~/usr : $ cd /Users/dhinton/projects/cover/build/ && rm -rf * && CC=~/usr/bin/clang CXX=~/usr/bin/clang++ LLVM_DIR=~/usr/lib/cmake/llvm